Oh No – Repealing Fuel Economy Standards Might Liberate Consumer Choice

Schwarzenegger being forced to drive a gas guzzling Hummer by “big oil”.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The LA Times is worried that rolling back fuel economy standards might allow drivers to choose the solidly built gas guzzling cars they want instead of being forced to buy climate friendly plastic boxes on wheels.

Rolling back fuel economy standards could mean bigger cars — and less progress on climate change

By Tony Barboza

Gas prices have been so low in recent years that more Americans are choosing to buy bigger vehicles, a trend that has stymied efforts to cut auto emissions.

One thing reining in consumer appetite for trucks and SUVs has been tough fuel economy standards adopted several years ago by California and the Obama administration. Those rules are forcing automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put cleaner, more efficient gas, hybrid and electric vehicles in showrooms, whether customers want them or not.

But this week, the Trump administration declared that those standards are too onerous for the auto industry and should be weakened — a move that would undermine the single biggest action the federal government has taken to slow climate change while threatening California’s ability to adopt its own, stricter rules for tailpipe emissions.

Those strict standards were necessary, experts in environmental regulation say, to push against the influence of low gas prices.

“For many, many years until these standards were issued we saw no increase in average fuel economy,” said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA. “Now we’re seeing many more models that are either zero-emission or very high-economy hybrids. We see larger cars getting more fuel efficient and regular combustion engines getting more fuel efficient. I don’t think that happens without government regulations.

“The focus in the past has been on making manufacturers in Detroit, making manufacturers in various parts of the country make cars that people aren’t going to buy,” Pruitt said. “Our focus should be on making cars that people purchase actually more efficient.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fuel-economy-impacts-20180406-story,amp.html

I love articles like this, because they draw back the veil on the intense frustration greens seem to feel about ordinary people having the liberty to make choices which greens don’t approve.

Advertisements

125 thoughts on “Oh No – Repealing Fuel Economy Standards Might Liberate Consumer Choice

  1. But this week, the Trump administration declared that those standards are too onerous for the auto industry and should be weakened — a move that would undermine the single biggest action the federal government has taken to slow climate change

    (my bold)
    Does Barboza have any evidence that these ‘standards’ have had any effect on the climate? At all?

    • Such a truly revolutionery idea. Fancy people actually deciding for themselves what they wànt to speand their own money on

      As to the killjoy greens, if they truly believe tha a certain life style will save the planet, then let them show us by a example.

      Find a deserted islland & survive.

      Mje

      • There’s a lot of empty space in Canada’s Arctic where the greens could go live without cells phone, synthetic fibres, plastics, or combustion of any sort, thereby leading the way to the future they claim to aspire to.

    • Evidence of an effect on the climate isn’t really the point, this is about a means to an end. The Climate Crusaders don’t really give a damn about climate or they would be leading by example rather than jetting themselves all over the globe for publicly financed weekends with their peers at conferences in exotic locations. No, the Climate Crusades are about accumulating political power by saving we-the-masses from an End-Of-Days threat to our very existence. This requires giving them unheard of power to micromanage the energy resources of every human being that we need to get through every day of our lives. Its a brilliant scheme: by controlling the availability and use of the energy that has lifted humanity into the modern era, they can control pretty much everything else.

    • Yeah, and just who has stood in the way of all those bloody SUV’s on the roads? Cars have been getting bigger and guzzlier anyway.

      You can bet Di Caprio and Gore and co don’t drive Mini Minors too although maybe their pets do.

      • Komrade: The reason I bought a Ford Expedition a few years ago was because it had enough room inside to keep me from feeling like a sardine. And, if you recall, the original reason for the mpg regs was the fear that we were running out of oil. But, as with global warming, uh, climate change, uh climate weirding…the reasons change but the regulations don’t.

  2. Excellent! Pruitt, head of the EPA says “Our focus should be on making cars that people purchase actually more efficient”. This is perhaps too reality based for a lot of Greenies. The other aspect of artificially lowered fuel economy standards is that car bodies became more flimsy because it takes less fuel to move around a lighter weight. Then someone crashes into you in a larger (older?) car and they win and you lose.

    • Actually, for a given size cars have got a lot heavier, up to 50%, and most of that weight comes from improved crash protection. Of course adding in devices such as automatic transmissions and comprehensive air conditioning hasn’t helped to keep the weight down either. And it’s a myth that a heavier car is safer simply by virtue of its weight.

      • Eric, hope you’re not driving a Yugo, see “Laws of Physics Persist: In Crashes, Big Cars Win: MIT Technology Department”.

      • The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.

        – Hugh Keough (sportswriter)

      • yup my wifes escape weighs almost 1k lbs heavier than my marquis (on veh scale with full tank ,marquis was 4200 escape was 5000) yet I have ability to put heavier load on trailer receiver due to full frame.
        they have had to (in some spots on some cars) triple up on unibody to body sections, yet because this allows veh to more easily be built my robotics in component assy line. and the less people the less labor costs.
        full frame not as easy to build ( at least in early 2000 years possibly including 2010, suspension front and rear and first body component often, again not all veh or man.) hu,an labor due to needing dexterity if frame is off 1/8 inch. (usually they can bring it even at first station) and to line up against a known good component such as body module mounted with (for example) 4 bolts, 2 on each side to align..robots then can run the other bolts, welds,etc. off that known good axis.

  3. Should this (and other) demands by the greens be called “soft” fascism or would that be a wasted use of the word “soft?”

  4. The EPA mid term CAFE review is not going to reduce the fuel economy requirements from what they are today, but they will likely reduce the acceleration that was planned by Obama’s 54,5 mpg requirements that had to be reached by 2025. Fuel economy will continue to be increased but at a slower pace. Consumers primary consideration when purchasing a car is the monthly payment. Vehicle prices were likely to significantly increase to achieve the new standards. As vehicle prices go up with the introduction of additional technology, electrification, to meet a number, vehicle sales were likely to decline. People would simply opt to keep their old car, or buy a used car instead. Pruitt and the EPA and working to come up with a statistics based formula for CAFE to determine the level of regulation that would keep sales moving of todays more fuel efficient, safe, and less polluting cars. The average vehicle age is now 11.6 years and rising. The new regulations will be good for the economy (keep those car plants humming, good for the consumer (keeping vehicle prices affordable even as interest rates rise), and maximize the sale of the safest, most fuel efficient, and less polluting vehicles that have ever been built and are now on dealers lots but not on the road. Replacing older cars is best for the environment.

    I have been to Cuba and see that people can keep their old car running for quite a long time. That is not the best model. Govt is working to determine the level of regulation that is best for the economy, the consumer, and the environment, and do it in a way that is completely transparent and open to review.

    • “The average vehicle age is now 11.6 years and rising. ”
      Mine is 14y old, ~130,000 km, and you wouldn’t tell. The fact is, cars are more and more reliable and durable as time goes. Sure, they DO have electronic issues previous car didn’t, but they have much less mechanical trouble. And it shows in the number of mechanics.
      THAT is programmed obsolescence, I guess

      • ‘Average age’ means the average age of vehicle currently on the road. That means the average age at which a vehicle is taken off the road is twice that – 23.2 years. (ignoring mode, median, mode).

  5. Although I’m a climate skeptic, this is one area where I don’t agree with the notion of uninhibited freedom. Fossil fuels are a precious resource that shouldn’t be wasted. The idea of a 110 pound housewife tooling down to the local Safeway in her 3 ton Hummer to buy a loaf of bread seems to be a little selfish to me.

    • Trebla, while your opinion on selfishness is fine, are you willing to impose your opinion on that housewife and make her drive a smaller car? Wouldn’t her opinion that she needs that size vehicle to protect her and her children in a crash matter? Would you like if someone said we all had to buy certain cars and certain cars only? In addition, fossil fuels have been projected to be depleted for over a hundred years now, but proven reserves keep increasing.

    • “The idea of a 110 pound housewife tooling down to the local Safeway in her 3 ton Hummer to buy a loaf of bread seems to be a little selfish to me.”
      Ah, yes, the ol’ straw man argument. Haven’t seen one in a while. Like an old friend. I mean fiend.
      What else shouldn’t people be allowed to do? And who decides? Big Brother? People do foolish things with their money, but it’s their money. Greenies love to play the game of “look how much money we’re saving you”, but “fuel economy” comes at a price. They just try to hide that price.

      • The Decider decides:

        You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.
        Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), 26 May 2015

    • …Fossil fuels are a precious resource that shouldn’t be wasted….

      Nonsense! We have far more fossil fuel than we could ever use on this planet, let alone vast quantities in the rest of the Solar System within easy reach. There is NO requirement to limit use in any way, unless you believe the Green religion…

    • ” The idea of a 110 pound housewife tooling down to the local Safeway in her 3 ton Hummer to buy a loaf of bread seems to be a little selfish to me.”

      What if she was a 250 lb lesbian, would that be OK?

      • You got me laughing this morning, Tom. Not only was your question funny all by itself, but I laughed even more when I realized that the answer was ‘Yes!’ There will always be exceptions made for those who have been mercilessly oppressed by billions of years of the while male hierarchy!

    • People have a right to be selfish.
      If you believe that fossil fuels are precious, feel free to buy as much as you want and store it for a future date.

    • “Trebla April 10, 2018 at 3:32 am
      Although I’m a climate skeptic, this is one area where I don’t agree with the notion of uninhibited freedom. Fossil fuels are a precious resource that shouldn’t be wasted. The idea of a 110 pound housewife tooling down to the local Safeway in her 3 ton Hummer to buy a loaf of bread seems to be a little selfish to me.”

      “Seems”?
      “Selfish”?

      Your dubious prejudices coupled with your derision and condescending extremes, indicate the opposite of what you claim.

      Stars, rich people, high level executives can get limousine service anywhere, yet you choose to describe a 110 pound woman.

      Stars, rich people, high level executives take private jets worldwide, yet you condemn a person’s choice of vehicle to run errands.

      Stars, rich people, high level executives travel on their yachts worldwide, yet you demean a housewife shopping at Safeway.

      Stars, rich people, high level executives own multiple residences, mostly in exclusive ultra expensive neighborhoods, yet you slight a housewife for needing a loaf of bread and transportation to get the bread.

      How much more disdain is necessary before that lady’s ability to travel is removed while expecting that she mix, raise and bake’s her own bread in some non-fossil fueled device?

  6. “We see larger cars getting more fuel efficient and regular combustion engines getting more fuel efficient. I don’t think that happens .” Oh yes it has always happened without government regulations. For years the private sector has been making stuff more fuel efficient, because consumers don’t like wasting money.

    These academics are clueless.

    • In addition, I bought a Honda 2012 CRV new and discovered they are now using electric servo steering. That eliminates power steering fluid from under the hood along with some heavy metal. The electric steering is a little more aggressive, but it was easy to adjust to. Now if we can stop them from blending methanol in the gasoline there would also be a further improvement in MPG.

      • I’m a bit disappointed that power assistance for steering seems to be standard equipment, even for small cars now days.
        I’m not so old that I need help steering. Given the option I’d rather have a lit bit better fuel economy and no power assist.

      • That would be death to us all in Florida where too many drivers can’t even see over the steering wheel.

      • I didn’t say get rid of it. However I would like the option of opting out.
        I understand the economics of making the cars as similar to each other as possible.
        Just consider it my useless whine of the day.

      • PS: If they can’t see over the steering wheel, does it really matter if they can turn the wheel easily?

      • I’ll be sure to avoid that model. I like a nice, solid connection between my steering wheel and the front wheels. Can’t hack that. Same goes for brakes. I doubt car makers are using DOD-level encryption and fly-by-wire redundancy in their products.

  7. “For many, many years until these standards were issued we saw no increase in average fuel economy,” said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA.

    I have travelled between the West coast of Scotland and South East London regularly for over 30 years. I have done so in a variety of diesel and petrol cars from a 1980’s petrol VW Polo to the latest Mercedes E220 diesel estate.

    Our last trip in the Mercedes saw us travel approx. 400 miles, fully loaded with kids, dogs and a luggage roof box. Other than a precautionary splash and dash, the trip was accomplished on a single, 60 litre tank of diesel, whilst travelling at 95mph wherever possible (frequently).

    The VS Polo, nor any other car I have owned could have accomplished this, although there was a perceptible increase in range for every car I owned.

    This woman is talking rubbish.

    • “This woman is talking rubbish.”
      True but it’s just more of their ‘at the same time therefore because of rubbish’ so what did you expect?

    • 95mph on the M6 and M74? Steady on HotScot or you and your nearest and dearest will find yourselves taking the “High Road” to Scotland.

      • mikewaite

        without wanting to seem conceited, I was trained in the police to drive faster than that. And blue lights and sirens are no use whatsoever at those speeds.

        Speed doesn’t kill, bad driving kills. And I appreciate that other have alternative views on that, but I don’t want to hijack the thread.

      • We’re just worried about you. It’s not you that I’m worried about. It’s the other idiots that you encounter.

      • Typically it isn’t speed or skill that kills, it’s the differential speed, regardless of skill level. If everybody is doing 75, all’s well. If the delta is plodders at 55 and demons at 90, something bad is likely to happen.

    • When I retired we dropped back to being a single car family. We rent whenever we need an extra vehicle. As a result, I’ve driven a bunch of different cars.

      I recently rented a gas VW that was surprisingly better than the run of the mill Japanese, Korean, and American econoboxes I usually get. The thing is that the published results don’t reflect that.

      In light of the above, your results from the Mercedes aren’t that surprising.

  8. …being forced to buy climate friendly plastic boxes on wheels…

    Haven’t you heard? ‘Plastic’ is the new CO2 – we must use as little of it as possible, and ban it altogether. Your new climate friendly boxes on wheels will be made from bio-sourced materials like coconut husks…

  9. The LA Times is worried that rolling back fuel economy standards might allow drivers to choose the solidly built gas guzzling cars they want instead of being forced to buy climate friendly plastic boxes on wheels.

    – Why yes; yes, it will. Your point?

    Mine would be, ” – That 110 pound housewife in the Hummer? – her dime, she can figger-out how to spend it herself. And after that Tesla crash / fire, to be honest I’d FAR rather my wife drive a 3-ton Hummer in freeway traffic than risk her neck in one of those plastic eco-boxes…”

  10. Matt Ridley has a timely piece on this….
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-bureaucracies-and-crony-capitalists-stifle-innovation/

    and for some reason I keep mulling over a little factoid about the British Empire..
    Something like 4,000 bureaucrat administrators, in London managed the thing = 25% of the entire world.
    Was that maybe 400 million people?
    One Chief per 100,000 Indians

    But now there are 4 million people working in the UK public sector administering an all-up population of ~60 million
    One Chief per 15 Indians

    What was the ratio of Patricians to Plebeians when Ancient Rome when down the pan, leading Europe into 1,000 years of Dark Age?

    • Peta

      Here is the ratio you ask for

      “from Douglas Carswells book ‘rebel’ page 169

      “in 104 BC the plebeian tribune Marcus Philippus, when proposing a law to redistribute land, claimed that all the property in Rome was owned by fewer than 2000 people. His claim might have been an exaggeration but wealth had become greatly concentrated. Maddison estimates that by the death of Augustus in AD14, the elite-defined as senators, equites and decuriones-comprised 121,600 people out of a total Italian population of 7 million. Yet by that time they took over half of total income in Italy.”

      The ratio of elites to plebs remains remarkably constant in many places, such as the EU.

      As regards ‘going down the pan, although the dark ages is somewhat misnamed, there is no doubt that for the average person things became worse after the collapse of Rome as the GDP did not return to the Roman average until around 1650 AD.

      tonyb

      • Civilization as most of 5th century Western Europe knew it went belly up, and roving armies of looters tore down and carried away most of the remains. It was like a zombie apocalypse, only substitute fictional zombies for real barbarians.

  11. There are PLENTY of huge cars to be bought now, CAFE standards do not seem to matter, what difference does it make? Ford EXPEDITION

    • The fact is, we don’t need the government making energy decisions for us ever. It’s just another attempt by the socialist/fascist elements in our government to gain more control over our lives. The Left can’t stand that we are energy independent and can make our own choices.

  12. The automakers get CAFE credits for making Flexfuel (high ethanol fuel) vehicles even if the consumer/buyer never has any intention of putting such corrosive, low energy fuel in their tank.
    But it helps keep Iowa ethanol corn growers on Team Climate.
    A little bit of something for everyone is how the political games are played, as we all get played.

    It is all smoke and mirrors.

    • Joel O’Bryan April 10, 2018 at 5:43 am
      The automakers get CAFE credits for making Flexfuel (high ethanol fuel) vehicles even if the consumer/buyer never has any intention of putting such corrosive, low energy fuel in their tank.
      But it helps keep Iowa ethanol corn growers on Team Climate…

      President Trump needs to initiate the roll-back on the insane ethanol subsidies. Running up world-wide food prices by putting food crops in our gas tanks is a crime against humanity.

    • That’s my biggest issue with the 54 mpg standard. With all the credits that could be taken for non-mpg things, you get to the point where the standard no longer measured actual fuel economy.

  13. From the article: “Rolling back fuel economy standards could mean bigger cars — and less progress on climate change”

    Dang! How much bigger can cars get? I have an SUV that has 410 horsepower, and it’s a lightweight when compared to some of the cars being produced today with 500, 600, 700 horsepower straight out of the factory. Apparently, even under Obama’s heavy hand, Americans want lots of horsepower and the car companies give them what they want. No fuel-saving mindset in this country. Just the opposite! :)

    • I wish cars would get bigger, then I won’t need to buy a crew cab pickup to use as a car. Even the Impala is too small.

      • The other alternative is the ever-popular SUV. But, what if you don’t want or need an SUV? You are pretty much SOL. What happened to the station wagon? Seen a Subaru Legacy lately? Sheesh!

  14. Good! I was saddened when Porsche moved the Boxster/Cayman platform from the boxer 6 cylinder to the turbo charged 4 cylinder. Even though there is more horsepower there, they don’t sound right. Maybe they will bring out a 6 cylinder option on the newer models

  15. Instead of micromanaging vehicle performance, the government should just put a large tax on gasoline, say $5/gallon. This tax should be rebated to people with a tax ID on a per capita basis. People would have an incentive to drive less or not at all. I’m not saying the government should do this, but only that it would be a better way to curb gasoline consumption than setting mileage standards, which may be unrealistic.

    • Not to mention curbing consumption of other things like food, which require large amounts of fossil fuels to produce and deliver.

    • With – of course – a hefty cutout for the people who enforce the tax and administer the rebate. And after six months, and additional cutout to provide for the homeless or illegals. Maybe fund some more climate science studies that show a $10 tax would be even better – reducing fossil fuel use even further – and maybe forcing people to grow crops in their back yard, since they can’t afford food. Oh! Bonus! Decrease the surplus population among those who don’t have back yards!
      I like that idea!

    • Tom,

      the government should just put a large tax on gasoline, say $5/gallon.

      I’m not saying the government should do this…

      with respect, yes, you are. :)

    • Tom,

      Do the words “taking things out of context” mean anything to you…I didn’t think so…

      You wrote a three sentence paragraph. I quoted most of two of them. I don’t think I took anything out of context. I’ll admit that I may not be the smartest person in the world, but your statement was confusing at best (at least to me). You may have a good point, but it was lost in your comment.

    • Tom,

      Quick follow-up.

      you said, “the government should just put a large tax on gasoline..”,

      then you said:

      “I’m not saying the government should do this, but only that it would be a better way to curb gasoline consumption…”

      Stating that it (a large tax on gasoline) would be a better way to curb gasoline consumption is the same thing as saying that the government should “just put a large tax on gasoline.”

      I don’t think I took anything out of context.

  16. Are we not supposed to get rid of cars, and fuel altogether, anyway? going back to good old walking or riding (horse or bicycle)? So doesn’t it matter if the banned car are efficient or not?

  17. Efficiency requires a certain degree of effectiveness. Otherwise, it’s not efficient at performing the desired task. So, “Smart Car efficiency” is irrelevant to towing a boat or taking a family of six on a long trip. And even if it saves slightly more fuel while requiring 3 trips instead of one, it still isn’t efficient for purchasing gardening supplies because of wasted effort and time. The way they use words and the way we let them is information pollution.

  18. the Trump administration declared that those standards are too onerous for the auto industry and should be weakened…

    This has been the claim in the media. What has actually happened is that onerous future increases have been delayed/cancelled under the new EPA standard of using science. No weakening of existing regulations.

  19. Fuel economy comes at a price in terms of : initial capital cost, complexity, reduced reliability, higher maintenance costs and rapid depreciation. All these costs etc. in themselves generate CO2. with obsolescence perhaps taking top place.

    The tighter the regulation the higher the scrappage rate. Unintended consequences strike again!

  20. One of the local papers in my area, the Detroit Free Press, (aka, the “liberal paper”) ran an editorial despairing over the roll-back of the Obama administration mileage standards. Once again the editorial lamented how Americans won’t be able to buy the high-mileage cars they really want, or words to that effect.

    One wonders if these editorial writers actually read their own paper which over the previous weeks had several articles about the inability of the manufacturers to sell small and medium size cars, how the demand for trucks and large SUVs is soaring, and how one manufacturer is considering shifting the product line to exclusively trucks and SUVs.

    • Car makers bust their hinder most parts to try and figure out what the people want, so that they can make it before their competitors do.
      Standard liberal BS about how companies don’t care about consumers.

  21. The glass replacement guy told me that my vehicle has a thinner windshield than earlier models. He thinks the manufacturer did this to reduce weight and thereby raise fuel efficiency. But then I have to get my windshield replaced more often. I would rather pay a little more for gas than replace an expensive windshield. How much “greenhouse” gas is produced in the manufacture of the new windshield? Thanks a lot, “greens”. NOT!

  22. The LA Times is worried……. No surprise — neo-marxists are always worried — worried about their real intentions being exposed.

    That said, I seriously doubt any rollback of requirements are even proposed — only perhaps a relaxing of the schedule. Anyways, if the LA Times is so worried, suggest something to do about all the cars & trucks in your own city. Clean up your own dang house.

  23. I saw one of those smart cars recently. It reminds me of the red and orange toy cars popular 30 years ago. Any sort of accident and you would be killed. I was rear-ended once by a car going 40mph and was not hurt so I can imagine it. The unrealism of such small cars should be obvious to anyone with kids. Try loading 2 kids, a stroller, and groceries in the thing. hahahaha

  24. Ask any liberal and they’ll tell you that people who don’t work for government aren’t smart enough to run their own lives.
    That’s why the government has to be in charge of everything.

    Like Clinton said when discussing a possible tax cut: “I’d like to give you one, but I’m afraid that you won’t spend the money properly and that will hurt the economy.”

  25. I wish we could have a similar roll back on other regulations on automobiles. I would love to once again be able to buy a smaller rear wheel drive based solid axle 4×4 like the old Jeep XJ Cherokee from 1984-2001. Because of crush standards, stability standards etc, you have to buy the much heavier, wider and longer 4 door Wrangler in order to get a rear wheel drive based solid axle Jeep, And you still can’t get a solid fixed metal roof.
    CAFE also ruined the market for sedans. Real sedans where the trunk lid was big and the roof didn’t slope down because of ‘coupe like’ styling. It would be great to have a sedan that once again looks like a sedan and all the roominess and practicality they once had.

  26. Hopefully, this is just the beginning!

    EPA, USDA, FDA and others have meddled in areas that they do not have any business meddling.
    Nor are any of the Federal/state agencies willing to correct side effects for regulations they’ve mandated.

    Far too many devices and appliances are far less efficient because the makers are trying to meet arbitrary regulations.

  27. As I think I have written here before, I was told after and intense meeting one day by an attorney and executive director of a very prominent environmental organization that humans must be regulated in everything they do because they can never be trusted to do “the right thing.” Of course “the right thing” as defined by the organized environmental community.

  28. They should roll them back even more, to 22 MPG. Then there will be more large cars and less SUVs, and overall higher mileage.

  29. “For many, many years until these standards were issued we saw no increase in average fuel economy,” said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA. “Now we’re seeing many more models that are either zero-emission or very high-economy hybrids. We see larger cars getting more fuel efficient and regular combustion engines getting more fuel efficient. I don’t think that happens without government regulations.”

    YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT! lives on.

    Mazda just perfected compression ignition for a gasoline engine, basically turned a gasoline engine into a diesel, with the associated increase in efficiency (25%) AND power (25%). The reason they could do it, computing power has increased to the point that made it possible. It just took time and technology improvements, not regulation. If the technology is applied to all gasoline engines, fuel efficiency would jump across the board by 25% and government regulation would have nothing to do with it. But be assured government would take credit for it. “You didn’t build that!” is competing with catastrophic manmade global warming for the biggest lie award.

  30. “There’s life in the old gal yet.” The gas engine abides. Here are three recent videos on Mazda’s new “spark-controlled compression-ignition” engine, coming in summer 2019, the best of which is:
    “Skyactiv-X: Mazda’s Revolutionary Engine Explained”
    http://bit.ly/2GxOg1K
    It’ll be coming out in about a year, and it’ll give EVs a run for the money. Here’s an article and two other videos on it:
    “Spark Controlled compression-ignition” gasoline skyactiv X engine; Feb. 2018 article:
    http://bit.ly/2GPUrl9
    “Mazda Creates The Holy Grail Of Gasoline Engines – HCCI SkyActiv-X”
    http://bit.ly/2GBsH0p
    Mazda Skyactiv-X HCCI Engine Technology Explained | AutoExpert John Cadogan | Australia 8/17
    http://bit.ly/2wy9tUH

  31. The quickest way to improve fuel efficiency is to ban the adulteration of gasoline with ethanol.

  32. They weren’t going to meet 50+ mpg by 2025. This was supposed to be reviewed and updated a few years ago, but the Obama Admin kicked the can down the road for obvious political reasons.

  33. When the Obama Administration originally issued the new CAFE standards (ultimately, 54 mpg), Iowahawk wrote a piece on it that was classic. My favorite part was the question: “54 mpg? Why not 54 million mpg?” Clearly the latter would be better, wouldn’t it? Obama and his minions were of the ilk who, having no idea how wealth is actually created, believed that a command issued at the point of a gun would make it so. It’s good to see that “choice” will be extended to our selection of cars, instead of restricted entirely to whether to abort or not.

  34. EMD spent a whole year (2015-2016) not selling ANY new locomotives in US (exports were ok, SD70ACe and others to mexico not allowed into US) costing lot of jons and already CA politicians are clamoring for ZERO emissions (not only nox.co2 but everything) making it so NO petrol fired engine can work yards in CA.

  35. I didn’t buy my truck for the fuel economy, and from reading various articles around the internet neither does anyone else. I can’t afford to own a different vehicle for every use-case so I have to by the one that serves my highest requirement and deal with the consequences. For me I needed to pull a 10k lbs trailer, that meant buying a full size truck with a massive engine. I do wish I could get more than 13 mpg on my normal commute but it is a sacrifice I made with full knowledge and intent. If the government, or anyone else for that matter, doesn’t like that I drive my truck daily then they are welcome to buy and insure another vehicle for me to use when I am not towing the trailer.

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s